Democrats set to add gay marriage to official party platform

posted at 6:01 pm on July 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

Might as well, no? Most voters doubtless believe it’s already in the platform, especially after The One’s carefully timed, hypercynical “evolution” this spring. Keeping it out wouldn’t win them any votes at this point but might irritate gay rights supporters, especially the young adults whom they need to turn out in November. Besides, anything O can do to change the subject from his economic record is probably a net positive for him this fall. That’s why he invited Bill Clinton to give the pep talk at the convention instead of Biden. The One can run on Bill’s record instead: Centrism, strong growth, higher taxes on the rich, DOMA, “don’t ask, don’t tell” — no, wait, scratch those last two.

It’s a comfort to know that, after centuries of noncompliance, the Democratic platform now officially comports with “Chicago values”:

Party officials met over the weekend in Minneapolis and approved the first step in the platform-amending process. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote on the matter at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would move on to convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final approval in September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on still could be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also included a condemnation of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.

The current draft platform, authored a few months ago, mentions the “freedom to marry” for gay couples. Wonder how this language would have ended up if The One had kept up his charade on SSM:

A draft plank circulated in February — before the president’s endorsement — read: “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

Exit question: Does the platform really matter? It’s a meaningful symbolic victory for gay rights supporters, but a much more meaningful one would be if Democratic pols tout the issue in their speeches at the convention. And I don’t mean just any Democratic pols; I’m sure there’ll be some gay congressman who gets three minutes to speak on C-SPAN at 3:30 in the afternoon to make the case for SSM. I’m talking about Clinton, Biden, the keynoter, and of course the Lightbringer himself, who I suppose is now obliged to include a sentence or two about this in his acceptance speech. Will he do more, though, by spending some time on it, or are the electoral effects still too unpredictable to justify more than a check-the-box approach? Makes me wonder if including it in the platform isn’t a way for them to appease gay rights supporters so that they don’t have to include it most of the big speeches.

I hear you. I actually don’t really care if it’s legal or not- I just don’t think we can afford the legal logistics to make it happen. It’s never mentioned what a law like this will cost across the board.

“The Black church founded the NAACP, and it is not the organization for the advancement of gays and lesbians–whatever the merits of that movement,” said Rev. William Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors. “Return to your roots and stand with the Black Church on marriage.”

They’re nutz. What the hell are vulnerable incumbents in the House and Senate supposed to tell their constituents now that the party platform officially includes support for gay marriage? How’d you like to be Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill right about now?

Exit question: Does the platform really matter? It’s a meaningful symbolic victory for gay rights supporters, but a much more meaningful one would be if Democratic pols tout the issue in their speeches at the convention

I’m perfectly fine with the Democrats putting this in their party platform.

The Republicans have a history of using this issue to drive up Evangelical/social con voter participation. Looks like the Dems are planning to help the Republicans out with 2012 get out the vote efforts.

I hear you. I actually don’t really care if it’s legal or not- I just don’t think we can afford the legal logistics to make it happen. It’s never mentioned what a law like this will cost across the board.

BettyRuth on July 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

It’s just that it’s being shoved down your throat everywhere you go. If you don’t support it – you are automatically considered a racist bigot homophobe. They don’t want to listen or understand why people are against it. Right away they spout the talking points.

I hear you. I actually don’t really care if it’s legal or not- I just don’t think we can afford the legal logistics to make it happen. It’s never mentioned what a law like this will cost across the board.

BettyRuth on July 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

It’s just that it’s being shoved down your throat everywhere you go. If you don’t support it – you are automatically considered a racist bigot homophobe. They don’t want to listen or understand why people are against it. Right away they spout the talking points.

Lost on the ballot in 26 states even Ca.. In Iowa every single Supreme Court Justice who voted for it was kicked out of office in the next election…Hairplugs has forced a Thelma and Louise on the dems with this issue. It’s a big net negative with the constituency Obama needs most working and middle class whites. Probably will cost him some black votes also.

Sorry, but I believe in the big tent and will remain GOP. What is amusing is that people like you don’t realize that the GOP will drop its opposition to SSM within a decade or so. I can’t wait to see your face when it happens.

McDuck on July 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You care more about this issue than anything else. So go vote for it. That’s all I’m saying.

As for your scenario, SSM will hit SCOTUS before then. Roberts will split the baby, again, saying equality should be countrywide, but you cannot force religious bodies.

And that will finally make Congress and the States stop calling it “marriage”, for it will be an obvious violation of church and state.

You’ll have the exact same rights and protections as any other couple, which I’ve always been fine with. But the canard about second-class citizenry will be evaporated.

As for the GOP, I have little doubt that when SCOTUS hears this case, it’s going to be conservative groups arguing against GOP legal counsel lead by Ted Olson.

It’s just that it’s being shoved down your throat everywhere you go. If you don’t support it – you are automatically considered a racist bigot homophobe. They don’t want to listen or understand why people are against it. Right away they spout the talking points.

I guess my last straw was the crap with Chick-fil-a.

I just want to scream everytime I hear/read about it.

gophergirl on July 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I agree. I also think I’m going to weigh several pounds more before this Chick-fil-A boycott is over- Those peach shakes are to die for. I’m probably going to eat there twice on the 3rd.

First off, that isn’t splitting the baby. That would be a full victory for the good guys. No one I even trying to force churches to perform SSM, so no loss there. And Kennedy, not Roberts, will be the swing.

Second, the states and Congress will not stop calling it marriage. Not going to happen. There is no violation of church and state since the civil concept of marriage already differs feom that of various religions.

And Ted Olson has teamed up with Boies in the Prop 8 case. He suuports same-sex marriage and is pushing for it nationwide.

What the heck is the problem with you religious imbeciles shouldn’t you weirdos celebrate two people in a committed relationship? oh by the way freak shows THERE IS NO GOD YOU MORONS stop using that badly written poetry book to justify your inbred hillbilly snake handling dumbness you fat, cheap, Wal Mart shopping, rotted teeth losers. Stop being hateful bigots for once you dopes. two chicks or two dudes getting married isn’t going to harm marriage you stupes hetero marriages track record has done the damage already.

I hear you. I actually don’t really care if it’s legal or not- I just don’t think we can afford the legal logistics to make it happen. It’s never mentioned what a law like this will cost across the board.

BettyRuth on July 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

My thing is where do you stop? Why not let 10 people marry? Why not let people marry siblings? Brothers marry their sisters. Mom’s marry their 6 children?… “Oh.. that’s crazy. Nobody is talking about that”… yet.

Yeah.. the activists mock your for the line you’ve drawn.. so when you open it up and remove all the lines then they mock you for that.
“But I love my son. We’re so good for each other. Why can’t we marry. We’re happy. We’re in love. And we’re at peace with God and Jesus married his mother too. It says so in the Bible our church translated.”

“I support local business, I think it’s really important to our community to support local business,” protester Cate Owen said. “If it has to do with discrimination I don’t think we should support it. I think we should want to change their policies. It’s not like we want to shut them down.”

And if the bakery owner doesn’t change his policies, the next step is to shut him down.

I wonder how things might go if Dems start losing in droves over this one issue alone. What will the gays do then–try boycotting entire states? (actually, I think that was tried once some years ago)

You are going to have a hard life, babe, because our culture is on the cusp of a big (and deserved) victory for letting gay people be gay. And it is really good for straight people to have normal gay people around and not the neurotic oppressed gays of past.

What the heck is the problem with you religious imbeciles shouldn’t you weirdos celebrate two people in a committed relationship? oh by the way freak shows THERE IS NO GOD YOU MORONS stop using that badly written poetry book to justify your inbred hillbilly snake handling dumbness you fat, cheap, Wal Mart shopping, rotted teeth losers. Stop being hateful bigots for once you dopes. two chicks or two dudes getting married isn’t going to harm marriage you stupes hetero marriages track record has done the damage already.

“I don’t understand why you have to give up McDonald’s.”
“It’s simple, Mom #2. They are a pedophobic corporation and we can’t in good conscience eat there.”
“You mean they are–”
“Yes. They won’t accept the right of young people like me to love what used to be called ‘adults’.”
“But that’s–well, that’s wrong. Sex with minors is wrong!”
“Oh come on, Mom #2. That’s what your parents used to say about LGBTQWERTY when you were growing up! If it weren’t for the Dear Leader you wouldn’t have been able to marry Sasha and Julia and I couldn’t have been implanted!”
“Maybe I’m just old-fashioned…I’m trying to understand.”

You are going to have a hard life, babe, because our culture is on the cusp of a big (and deserved) victory for letting gay people be gay. And it is really good for straight people to have normal gay people around and not the neurotic oppressed gays of past.

thuja on July 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM

SIGH

Not everybody who is anti-gay marriage hates gays or wants them to be oppressed. Get down with your gay self I say.

What I have a problem with is being force fed what people feel is “right” and when I disagree being called a racist homophobe bigot.

Or to put it another way. Lets try a hypothetical. What if it weren’t legal to marry the person you loved because it made a bunch of strangers uncomfortable?

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Why do you insist on not having a productive relationship with the opposite sex (which could be recognized as a marriage) just because you are good friends with someone of your own sex or addicted to gay sex?

Unbelievable gift. And this from the administration that poll tests and focus-groups every teleprompted word from ObeyMe’s lips. Apparently 0 for 32 is an ok batting average. Hopefully next week they adopt the gun ban plank.

I’m not sure if you’re married or not. But how many married couples out there do you think feel the legal part of their union is totally immaterial to it being a “marriage?”

Now if you answer that honestly, lets try that hypothetical again. How would you feel if you could not be legally married for no other reason than it made other people uncomfortable. Or because another person religion didn’t approve of your marriage?

You know this is really about getting government to declare you “right”, and thus superior to someone else, right?

Count to 10 on July 30, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Again. Only conservatives can feel like extending a state benefit to more people is them becoming inferior to someone else. Amazing.

Why do you insist on not having a productive relationship with the opposite sex (which could be recognized as a marriage) just because you are good friends with someone of your own sex or addicted to gay sex?

Count to 10 on July 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Would you want your daughter to marry a gay guy who wasn’t in love with her just so he could be “married?”

gain. Only conservatives can feel like extending a state benefit to more people is them becoming inferior to someone else. Amazing.

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

And only the less that one percent of Homosexual Americans who are activists are so selfish that they want their deviant (outside the normal)choice of sexual partner accepted as normal through the redefinition of the word “marriage”.

Why do you insist on not having a productive relationship with the opposite sex (which could be recognized as a marriage) just because you are good friends with someone of your own sex or addicted to gay sex?

Count to 10 on July 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

But also, this is hilarious. “Addicted to gay sex.” You don’t even know the meaning of addiction. “Good friends with someone of your own sex.” Is that what you think romantic love is. Are you telling me that heterosexual marriages are between people who are “good friends” and who are “addicted to heterosexual sex?” Clearly someone you marry should be your best friend, not one of many “good friends.” Sometimes I wonder if social conservatives like Count to 10 even know what love is…

Would you want your daughter to marry a gay guy who wasn’t in love with her just so he could be “married?”

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM

You’re problem is the phrase “in love with”. It doesn’t really mean anything but temporary infatuation. Love is something that develops over time, and is not exclusive.
Granted, I would rather that my daughter not get involved with a man who is perusing such a dangerous lifestyle that he would call himself “gay”, but that really isn’t the issue here, is it?

What the heck is the problem with you religious imbeciles shouldn’t you weirdos celebrate two people in a committed relationship? oh by the way freak shows THERE IS NO GOD YOU MORONS stop using that badly written poetry book to justify your inbred hillbilly snake handling dumbness you fat, cheap, Wal Mart shopping, rotted teeth losers. Stop being hateful bigots for once you dopes. two chicks or two dudes getting married isn’t going to harm marriage you stupes hetero marriages track record has done the damage already.

But also, this is hilarious. “Addicted to gay sex.” You don’t even know the meaning of addiction. “Good friends with someone of your own sex.” Is that what you think romantic love is. Are you telling me that heterosexual marriages are between people who are “good friends” and who are “addicted to heterosexual sex?” Clearly someone you marry should be your best friend, not one of many “good friends.” Sometimes I wonder if social conservatives like Count to 10 even know what love is…

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Funny thing is, I’m not a social conservative. I’m just an atheist who has seen the way this social construct of “gay” has torn people’s lives up. Frankly, it’s all connected to the Hollywood concept of “romance”, where love is indistinguishable from sexual desire.

Oh dear. Are you one of those people who thinks that once the initial dopamine rush of love wears out that the more content, relaxed, cyclical passions of a long term relationship aren’t “love.” I feel for you. Folks like yourself think that there’s something wrong with you or your relationships. Nope, its just that you’re probably not mature enough for a long term relationship. Yes, you are still “in love with” someone once the initial infatuation runs out, if you’re bonded together by more than pure passion. Perhaps you should think about finding people to be friends with and thinking about sexual attraction less. You may have a better understanding of what love is. But, it makes sense, people who don’t know what love is would have a hard time understanding why being denied the right to marriage is a form of oppression. Its all clear now.

Or to put it another way. Lets try a hypothetical. What if it weren’t legal to marry the person you loved because it made a bunch of strangers uncomfortable?

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Why do you insist on not having a productive relationship with the opposite sex (which could be recognized as a marriage) just because you are good friends with someone of your own sex or addicted to gay sex?

Count to 10 on July 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I will back up libfreeordie on this. It’s probably the only thing in the world I agree with this person on, but it’s the way I feel and I’m not afraid to say it. Also I don’t have any gay people in my family nor am I friends with them, it’s just my beliefs.

Libfree is correct, people wouldn’t like it if was reversed.

Also, I will argue this forever, but homosexuality is not a choice, it’s genetic.

Oh dear. Are you one of those people who thinks that once the initial dopamine rush of love wears out that the more content, relaxed, cyclical passions of a long term relationship aren’t “love.” I feel for you. Folks like yourself think that there’s something wrong with you or your relationships. Nope, its just that you’re probably not mature enough for a long term relationship. Yes, you are still “in love with” someone once the initial infatuation runs out, if you’re bonded together by more than pure passion. Perhaps you should think about finding people to be friends with and thinking about sexual attraction less. You may have a better understanding of what love is. But, it makes sense, people who don’t know what love is would have a hard time understanding why being denied the right to marriage is a form of oppression. Its all clear now.

How would you feel if your ENTIRE life was nothing but a lie ? That is what we have for the President of the United States; a liar and a lie. Obama’s lies are slowly catching up to him and even the poorly educated, socially uplifted masses in this country are seeing that their hero is nothing but a compulsive liar with bad intentions. The good thing is that Obama can not keep his mouth shut and at the same time can not tell anything but lies. That combination is going to be his train wreck during the elections this fall. His crash will be more spectacular than the Hindenburg disaster.

In the spirit of tolerance, equality, and understanding: can you as a black man explain why the black community is vehemently against gay ‘marriage’? Is it because of widely held traditional religious beliefs or something else?

I’m just an atheist who has seen the way this social construct of “gay” has torn people’s lives up.

There are a lot of problems with “gay” as a marker of identity. But what “tears people’s lives up” is when they feel the need to pretend to be heterosexual in order to make it in this world. Unfortunately many gay men, particularly in earlier generations, were neither able to fake being straight or release themselves from the psychological shackles of anti-gay hatred. And so, they hate themselves and destroy themselves in a variety of horrible ways, from drug addiction to actual suicide. It is a terrible thing. But its not because the word “gay” exists. Its what happens when a person feels rejected by society merely for who they are. Those self destructive behaviors are a sad testament to how societal rejection can scar a person.

Gaypression? The militant gay movement has been oppressing families for years. They conduct perverse acts in front of children. They shout-down anyone who defends traditional marriage. But, we have seen it all before–liberalism supports free-thought, as long as all thoughts are the same. I would be fine saying live, and let live. But the gays are not alright with that ethos.

Again. Only conservatives can feel like extending a state benefit to more people is them becoming inferior to someone else. Amazing.

libfreeordie on July 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Now that you put it that way, maybe we should entirely stamp out the real discrimination inherent in marriage (i.e. categorizing people as either married or single) and just declare everyone to have married status. Henceforth, all single people are now to be considered married and shall have full access to marriage’s benefits, including any tax advantages and guaranteed visitation rights during illness. Well, I feel better already. I just extended a state benefit to 100% of the population.

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

All beliefs should be equal, regardless of their source, Feldblum says. “A belief derived from a religious faith should be accorded no more weight—and no less weight—than a belief derived from a non-religious source.” According to Feldman, the source of a person’s belief—be it God, spiritual energy, or the five senses—“has no relevance.”

‘Identity liberty’ versus ‘belief liberty’

Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty—which she also calls “belief liberty”—must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.

No, I’m talking about after they decided to go gay, and all of their friends and family accepted it. Not only did it not solve any of the problems they thought it would, it heap on even more — particularly in terms of families split up or never started.